Re-visiting the GW690iii

C

cliveward

Member
Local time
8:56 PM
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
30
Hi All,

I must confess to having not used the big Fuji for quite some time. It had one outing in recent years to do a family group photograph for a special gift, that I then for the first time had specially scanned and printed onto a very large canvas and the results were quite stunning. So much so that it kind of ruined digital photography for me. I knew what I should really do, but resisted it.

It then duly got put away again and on I struggled with the X100 :bang:

Fast forward a bit before a family trip away and I thought I would get the GW690iii CLA'd and use it for the odd bit of landscape with the kids in, along side the X100.

What actually happened was the X100 got used for about a day before I got cheesed off with fighting it and I reverted to the 690 for the rest of the trip.

I got through 6 rolls of film (a lot for me) and as usual they are all just very nice photographs. I've had one printed off as a gift already!

I think it really answers the question of what to use when the only photographs I have ever had printed and on display are all from the GW690iii.

So for the time being if I want to just take a snapshot I use my phone and if I want to take a photograph, I use an actual camera. ;)


Cheers





Clive
 
cliveward said:
...

So for the time being if I want to just take a snapshot I use my phone and if I want to take a photograph, I use an actual camera. ;)


Cheers





Clive
Click to expand...

I don't own anything digital except my smartphone, and a Sony 6mp digital P&S. But I prefer film myself as well.

But I urgently suggest you keep your flame retardant suit on for a while. :p :D
 
I was quite happy with digital, until I did the big print and did it properly, i.e. I had the negative scanned so that one pixel on the scan equated to one dot of ink on the print (at the print processes highest resolution). The end result was just alive!

I'm sure digital will catch up to my new expectations eventually and I came very close to purchasing a Sigma SD Quattro but in the end I decided £1000+ would be better spent on processing film from the big Fuji. Cost-wise it works out about £1.75-£2 per photograph processed and scanned to a 35MP file including film.

I'm still not sure it would be possible to replicate the 'character' of the Fuji's format and lens though.

As an aside I find the GW690iii the most comfortable camera to carry around all day. If I'm not using it I put it over my shoulder. It doesn't get in the way or swing about and if I do accidentally knock it on something, I don't care because it's already rather battered. :D


Cheers





Clive
 
GW690 cameras rock. For people who say that 6x7 cameras are so incredible because of the negative size etc, the 6x9 has them dwarfed. And what a versatile negative - it's like having four cameras in one! A 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9. (I could even include the 6x8 but seeing that's Fuji's own I won't..)
Amazing value for money given the quality of the output. What else can perform like that for $500?
My only wish is that the rf focusing spot would be more distinct like that of the Minolta CLE or Leicas.
 
When I got my Super Press 23, I opted for a 6x7 back. I thought that good for enlarging and it is. I never really wanted a 6x9 due to the odd size versus paper. Then for some reason, I got a 6x9 Zeiss folder with a Novar lens. I found 6x9 is an amazing format. I wish I had a couple of 6x9 backs for the Super Press. But really, that Novar lens is surprisingly good as well.

But I am not giving up my 6x7 either. And if I insist on 6x9, I can always default to cut film for the Press.

But again, I am in agreement that a 6x9 negative is beautiful to behold.
 
Just at the time I had it idle for a couple weeks. I bought off a few propacks as I intended departing to a 3w trip to asia, alas it hasn't and may not happen, but it will be nice to shoot it around home.
I also found the charm of shooting cheap film in a cheaply bought Nikon F80, ran out of batteries and that helps me revisit the Fuji.
cliveward said:
(...)in the end I decided £1000+ would be better spent on processing film from the big Fuji. Cost-wise it works out about £1.75-£2 per photograph processed and scanned to a 35MP file including film.

I'm still not sure it would be possible to replicate the 'character' of the Fuji's format and lens though.

As an aside I find the GW690iii the most comfortable camera to carry around all day. If I'm not using it I put it over my shoulder. It doesn't get in the way or swing about and if I do accidentally knock it on something, I don't care because it's already rather battered. :D

Clive
Click to expand...
The character of the lens+format is something that won't be replicated. It's after all a 90mm lens covering 6x9 and a 135, so you have the narrower DoF with wide FoV. I find it is fantastic for environmental portrait and photography. People integrated within landscapes and such.

The costs, well. The camera allows using it almost as a 35mm would, but then it has huge real state. I'm a bit broke right now and have a V500, which doesn't quite do justice to 6x9.

Fantastic seaside images, I live in a coastal town and yesterday took a few frames on Ektar.
Huss said:
My only wish is that the rf focusing spot would be more distinct like that of the Minolta CLE or Leicas.
Click to expand...
Oh god, was taking some seaside frames and tried to nail focus to the water (swash), quite difficult because they moved quite fast. Indeed it could be larger and maybe square for distinction.

As of the film format, 6x9 is half-quasi-LF. Some complain about the ratio but it's just the same as 135. I'd like to try a 6x6 and 6x7 just for film economy and travel. Also, about the lack of light meter... Classic Leicas neither have.

They are best bang for the buck Medium format nowadays.
 
cliveward said:
Hi All,

I must confess to having not used the big Fuji for quite some time. It had one outing in recent years to do a family group photograph for a special gift, that I then for the first time had specially scanned and printed onto a very large canvas and the results were quite stunning. So much so that it kind of ruined digital photography for me. I knew what I should really do, but resisted it.

It then duly got put away again and on I struggled with the X100 :bang:

Fast forward a bit before a family trip away and I thought I would get the GW690iii CLA'd and use it for the odd bit of landscape with the kids in, along side the X100.

What actually happened was the X100 got used for about a day before I got cheesed off with fighting it and I reverted to the 690 for the rest of the trip.

I got through 6 rolls of film (a lot for me) and as usual they are all just very nice photographs. I've had one printed off as a gift already!

I think it really answers the question of what to use when the only photographs I have ever had printed and on display are all from the GW690iii.

So for the time being if I want to just take a snapshot I use my phone and if I want to take a photograph, I use an actual camera. ;)


Cheers


.


Clive
Click to expand...

I've been using a Fuji 690s as my "big negative" travel cameras for a number of years now. I can easily make attractive 16x20 prints with negatives from this camera - I shoot FP4 processed in 1:1 D76. Within reason, a 690 is also useful for streetshooting.

If there is a downside with the 690, it that there can only be 8 exposures on a roll of 120 film. It is necessary to constantly reload the camera if the subjects are attractive and offer many shots. This, in turn, makes it necessary to find a shady spot to do the reloading. Not too difficult in a city, or in most places in Europe, but sometimes a bit of a challenge to find shade in western US desert country.

I also have a Fuji x100s which I use constantly and hold in high regard. You might want to take the trouble to become comfortable with using your x100; it isn't a substitute or replacement for the 690 and what the X100(s, t, whatever model) does, it can do very well
 
Two of my favorite shots I've taken with the GW690 iii:

image-11.jpg


image-2.jpg


I don't even care that the second one isn't totally sharp. I just love the way this camera renders color.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Graybeard said:
I've been using a Fuji 690s as my "big negative" travel cameras for a number of years now. I can easily make attractive 16x20 prints with negatives from this camera - I shoot FP4 processed in 1:1 D76. Within reason, a 690 is also useful for streetshooting.



If there is a downside with the 690, it that there can only be 8 exposures on a roll of 120 film. It is necessary to constantly reload the camera if the subjects are attractive and offer many shots. This, in turn, makes it necessary to find a shady spot to do the reloading. Not too difficult in a city, or in most places in Europe, but sometimes a bit of a challenge to find shade in western US desert country.



I also have a Fuji x100s which I use constantly and hold in high regard. You might want to take the trouble to become comfortable with using your x100; it isn't a substitute or replacement for the 690 and what the X100(s, t, whatever model) does, it can do very well
Click to expand...



I'm surprised you need a shady spot. I put my back to the sun and reload in the shadow that my body makes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
JChrome said:
Two of my favorite shots I've taken with the GW690 iii:
(...)
I don't even care that the second one isn't totally sharp. I just love the way this camera renders color.
Click to expand...

Had seen the first on the thread about underrated Fujis. But the second is quite a jewel. About the lens characteristics that were mentioned by the OP. This is what I am talking about, the depth.
The color here really looks like Slide film, is it? Or portra? I should unfreeze some Fujichrome, bec-AH-use that size of transparencies are gorgeous.

Seeing people who took them travel inspires me. They get a bad rap for size but are rather manageable. Tomorrow if light allows, I'll take it around Barcelona.
I tend to location scout prior doing some shooting. Helps getting nice conditions. Also am quite careful shooting (used to be in 35mm taking me centuries to go through a roll), but when the mojo kicks in it's really easy to burn the 8EXP. I managed to get some 160NS in 220 for that reason thinking about a trip to Asia.

The iPhone is a nice snapshot digital camera and doubles as a meter. My lab has business cards that are 18%, though I always forget using the latter.
 
One of the few criticisms I have for the Fuji is that it is easy to fat roll it if you are not really careful maintaining film tension when loading it.
 
Prest_400 said:
Had seen the first on the thread about underrated Fujis. But the second is quite a jewel. About the lens characteristics that were mentioned by the OP. This is what I am talking about, the depth.
The color here really looks like Slide film, is it? Or portra? I should unfreeze some Fujichrome, bec-AH-use that size of transparencies are gorgeous.

Seeing people who took them travel inspires me. They get a bad rap for size but are rather manageable. Tomorrow if light allows, I'll take it around Barcelona.
I tend to location scout prior doing some shooting. Helps getting nice conditions. Also am quite careful shooting (used to be in 35mm taking me centuries to go through a roll), but when the mojo kicks in it's really easy to burn the 8EXP. I managed to get some 160NS in 220 for that reason thinking about a trip to Asia.

The iPhone is a nice snapshot digital camera and doubles as a meter. My lab has business cards that are 18%, though I always forget using the latter.
Click to expand...

These are all shot with Portra.

I suppose I keep posting the first one because I love it so much.

I have some more which showcase the depth of the color:
image-18.jpg


image-1.jpg


image-21.jpg


image-34.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom